TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them were alloy steels and hence, they attracted nil duty. However, based on the intelligence report and the verification of the shipping bills, show cause notices were issued, holding the view that the respondents were exporting non-alloy steel billets, attracting customs duty at 15% as per Notification 66/2008 dated 10.05.2008. Samples were drawn from the seaport consignments and the same were tested in National Metallurgical Laboratory. The report obtained, revealed boron content as less than 0.0008% to indicate that the items in question were non-alloy steel billets mis-declared as alloy steel. Thus the additional Additional Director General, Enforcement Directorate, held that the export goods were liable for confiscation under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that the contract for supply of non-alloy steel would be converted to a contract for supply of alloy steel, with boron content at 0.0008%. The respondent pointed out that as per the customs tariff, steel billets containing boron content of 0.0008% or more are to be classified as alloy steel billets and hence, would be exempted under Notification No.66/08-Cus. dated 10.06.2008. Thus alloy steel billets containing 0.0008% of boron was manufactured and shipping bills containing the description of the said goods was filed along with the test reports issued by M/s. Kidao Laboratories, certifying the consignment as alloy steel containing 0.0008% boron. 5. The assessee pointed out that National Metallurgical Laboratories had already ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of a sample taken on the second test. 6. Referring to the decision reported in 1996 (84) ELT 53 (Shoruk Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise), wherein the tolerance limit was fixed at 2.5% and 3%, holding that the test method adopted indicated uncertainty on the results to the extent of 200%, the Tribunal held that the evidence relied upon by the Department had little value for the purpose of tariff determination. It further pointed out to the plea of the Revenue as regards the statements recorded from the officials of the respondent company and held that when the impugned goods had undergone chemical test which was a primary determining factor to adjudge on the existence of the misdeclaration, other evidence sought to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and had ignored the other evidence placed before it. Pointing out to the shipping bills dated between 19.06.2008 and 25.06.2008, that the goods were declared as alloy steel billets of prime quality and the earlier practice of the respondent was of exporting non-alloy steel only, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the change in the description had come only in the wake of imposition of duty on non-alloy steel and thus there was conscious misdeclaration to evade the appropriate customs duty. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in placing much emphasis on the error margin to grant the relief. In the circumstances, he submitted that the Tribunal's order is an arbitrary one and liable to be set aside. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its claim on misdeclaration. Thus, there being no other material placed, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the plea of the Revenue to admit the present appeal. 12. The appellant does not dispute the above-said facts, but then, their only insistence is on the statement recorded from the Managing Director and other officials of the respondent company. We do not find any good ground to accept that such statements could be substituted as good evidence in the place of the chemical test results. At one stage, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the scientists may be called for an examination before this Court to ascertain about the nature of the impugned goods. We do not think, this Court should undertake this exercise....